Talk:Michael Flynn/Archive 3

New Section on Release of New Evidence
The new section updates the Michael Flynn article and is written in a Neutral Point of View. It includes multiple citations from credible sources. It simply states how there is new evidence and both sides are now debating the importance thereof. The 13th 4postle (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , it includes information that is run of the mill and obfuscates the facts, so no, "multiple citations from credible sources" isn't enough. No "both sides" debating, it's not important. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely not run of the mill information. The new evidence has led to a huge increase in national media attention. This is considered by many legal and law enforcement analysts to be a significant factual update to the case. "Michael Flynn was railroaded by Comey's FBI", "The FBI Set Flynn Up to Preserve the Trump–Russia Probe." One of those was written by ex-FBI agent for 25 years, the other was an Assistant U.S Attorney in the Southern District of NY. There are 4 votes to 2 to support the inclusion of the factual information on the release of new evidence. This is now multiple times that you continue to edit the article to NOT include relevant and updated information. I would like for the information to be included without having to seek arbitration. It is written in a NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The 13th 4postle (talk • contribs)
 * - the Washington Examiner and National Review are poor sources. The Washington Examiner one is even an opinion piece. You don't go by counting votes here.  starship .paint  (talk) 04:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Those were not the sources I used in the new section. Those were sources I used to show that this new evidence is not "Run of the Mill" @ The 13th 4postle (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A "huge increase in national media attention" that is much ado about nothing. We don't report on every WP:FART. There is absolutely nothing significant in this document release, and no reason we should include it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This document release has been the focus of dozens of articles and opinion pieces. Many legal scholars have weighed in. Flynn's own lawyers have called for a mistrial. How much more coverage does this need before you'd think that it should be covered in this article? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage is not a guarantee of inclusion. His lawyers are basically doing PR for him, so why should we aid them? We're not a PR agency. The idea that these documents represent anything other than S.O.P. for the FBI are WP:FRINGE theories. The level of coverage isn't the issue. We're not a newspaper, so we don't simply regurgitate what the press does. These documents will be proven to be meaningful if they actually alter the prosecution of his case. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Really, you think WP:FRINGE applies here? Let me quote from that guideline: "Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative source to identify the mainstream view." At least two well-known American legal scholars, Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley, have weighed in to say that they agree with Flynn and his lawyers. Conversely, I don't know of any legal scholars who have stated that these latest documents are no big deal. So if any view here is fringe, it might be yours. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe find some that have not worked for Trump in the past 6 months? Just a thought.  SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether or not they worked for Trump (I don't think Turley ever did) is not relevant to WP:FRINGE. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not call them fringe. I would say the mainstream considers them compromised partisans, if not pathetic hacks, but just find better content and we'll all move on. I haven't seen any serious well-reasoned and qualified opinion that supports Flynn.  SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I called it fringe and do think Turley and Dershowitz have put themselves into fringe territory over the years. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, good. I'm glad somebody did.  SPECIFICO talk
 * Your opinions on Turley and Dershowitz, like mine, are irrelevant here. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My dear Korny, I haven't seen anyone express personal opinions here. (Except your opinion Turley didn't appear at the House Judiciary Committee hearing). Just let's find valid sources and get on to the next thing.  SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see any valid sources that talk about this since five days ago. In other words, the 24 hour news cycle has moved on from this because of lack of relevance. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait, I just found this one, but it's also insignificant. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I linked a Boston Globe Herald [h/t Muboshgu] piece from today, albeit an op-ed. It would be interesting to see if anyone covers it if the judge eventually throws the case out. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it's an op-ed, so case in point. If the judge throws the case out, then of course we will document why the case was thrown out. But for now, it's wait and see. "The judge in Flynn's case, Emmett Sullivan, later Thursday ordered Flynn's team to halt the piecemeal production of new documents and to only add new information to the court docket once they get everything the U.S. attorney is going to provide." – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you mean the op-ed from the Boston Herald? The Herald is to the Globe as the NY Post is to the NY Times. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, that is interesting. I wrote Herald below, after must of having read the URL and Globe here, thinking that was the source since I had told myself "because newspaper in Boston." I didn't realize there were two different newspapers, and that the Herald had such a reputation. Thanks for the heads up. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I figured that was an honest mistake. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO - you must have missed when Muboshgu wrote, "I do think Turley and Dershowitz have put themselves into fringe territory over the years". Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not his opinion. That's thinking.  SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Deep. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * These are some remarkably specific rules that you seem to be making up here. Apparently, to merit inclusion in this article, a fact has to be covered by media for a week straight - and not just any reliable sources, but the right ones. By that standard, 90% of the contents of this article should be deleted, I would think. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK let's wait another 10 days and see if anyone off the talk radio circuit is still pushing this. There's a big difference between a week straight and the past week straight with nothing on the horizon.  SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected - I thought it was just a week, but apparently a fact has to be discussed in the mainstream media for three weeks straight in order to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. At least, according to these rules you're making up. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that information on the new evidence should be added, though I didn't really like the way that new section was worded (no offense) - too much blow-by-blow stuff that doesn't really matter (no one really cares about the names of Flynn's lawyers). As noted earlier, that's a problem that afflicts this whole article, but that's another story. Anyway, I just added my own attempt at a new section, here. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * no, you don't have consensus to add the disputed content of the previous section (above this one). Gain consensus for its inclusion, and read up on the WP:ARBAPDS applied to this article. Honestly, this whole process is getting a little ridiculous -- do we need WP:RPP? or can editors actually discuss first, come to an agreement, and then edit? —Melbourne<b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 04:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a no consensus that Michael Flynn was entrapped. But why is there no consensus that new evidence shouldn't be included? The new evidence can be presented in a NPOV. It is not run of the mill as I have cited above. The 13th 4postle (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The 13th 4postle - that's exactly right. MelbourneStar - I agree that this is getting ridiculous, but not for the reasons you think. At the moment, there are a handful of editors who seem to be taking advantage of this article's special "discretionary sanctions" status to keep new information out of it, for who knows what reason. I think you give the game away by repeatedly citing "no consensus" as the reason why you're reverting. I mean, there's no consensus ahead of time for a typo fix either, but you wouldn't revert that change. There's obviously an underlying reason why you don't like these additions, so let's talk about that, instead of the endless circular logic of "I do not consent because there is no consensus". Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, you know full well that your edit wasn't a mere "typo fix" so please don't even try minimise it to that. Secondly, consensus is supposed to be clear, which this "consensus" is anything but. I'm certainly not taking advantage of the DS restrictions applied to this article as you've insinuated: if that were the case, I would have opened a discussion here about certain recent edits. Instead, I've opted to keep the active discussion going -- something I've been pretty consistent about. In response to your "underlying reason" comment, my thoughts on the matter are clear in black and white a section above. Thank you, —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 13:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I know it wasn't a typo fix - that's my point. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and my point was that you added content that was actively being discussed (still is), without obtaining the necessary consensus. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 13:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's very hard to obtain consensus ahead of time for three paragraphs' worth of text. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "It's very hard to obtain consensus" Ah, sorry? the onus is actually on you to adequately communicate with us what you'd like to add in to the article, especially if its currently under discussion and been challenged. Bypassing discussion is not the way you're going to achieve consensus. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 14:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You just linked to a guideline that has no relevance to this discussion. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's part of our verifiability policy, and as it relates to this discussion, I quote: ...all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content (emphasis mine). So If you can't convince others on the significance of the content you wish to add — that's not really my problem. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 14:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The versions that I've seen of this so far fall short of our NPOV and RS policies. "...some have argued that Flynn was entrapped ..." is not encyclopedic phrasing. Quartz, The Washington Examiner, and the WSJ editorial board are not good sources for factual content. Opinions from The Hill, Trump, and Dershowitz should be strictly avoided. Speculation from Fox News should be eschewed. I suggest that those wanting to include this propose something far more factual and succinct on this page, then we can try to get consensus for including it. - [[user:MrX|MrX 🖋 13:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * These are all pretty bold statements. No quoting Wall Street Journal editorials? Can any editorials be quoted in Wikipedia, or is just the WSJ's that are forbidden? And the opinions of legal scholar Alan Dershowitz can't be cited either? Is it all legal scholars, or just him? Finally, the opinions of President Donald Trump cannot be mentioned, about a former member of his administration? I'd love to see the guidelines covering any of this. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If there's valid content, there will be an abundance of undisputed valid sources. Just show and tell. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All of this news is about a legal dispute, so I don't know what you mean by "undisputed". Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant insisputably valid sources. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are the sources cited in my version of the text. Which of these are not indisputably valid? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think my comments are bold at all. They're pretty bog standard. Dershowitz is a partisan whose opinions are of no relevance here. Maybe there is a case to be made for Trump's viewpoint to be mentioned, but I have not yet seen it. WP:ONUS applies to POTUS too. - MrX 🖋 16:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that there was a "no partisan opinions" guideline. Are you just making up rules? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. - MrX 🖋 17:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC) ::::::All of us who are trying to make this article FACTUAL and not liberal POV agree with you that that is exactly what you are doing, thanks for admitting the truth! 173.172.158.168 (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be ok to simply add that new information was turned over to Flynn's team and they made some new filings. There doesn't need to be a focus on any governmental misconduct, and it should be sufficient to note that legal experts viewed it as largely not helpful. I feel this is a neutral update in line that is acceptable per NPOV. Regarding the valid concern about RS, here is a Boston Herald article and a piece by NPR. Granted the Boston Herald is an op-ed, but the factual statements about the new developments are confirmed there and elsewhere. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Flynn and his lawyers believe there was governmental misconduct - as do a variety of newspaper editorial boards, legal analysts, and politicians. Why shouldn't this article cover that? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I said there shouldn't be a focus on that. We could include what Flynn's team thinks with their filings, and attribute it to them. That's really for the judge to decide anyway, not RS. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The NPOV text would also focus on the right wing media fog and on Trump's pandering to Flynn and his supporters. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What's an example of a source that supports that? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Goddammit. Stop arguing about this and include Crossfire Razor name. And BTW, maybe somebody will find a new photo for George Popadopulus page? I tried but failed ;) 2A00:1FA0:427C:81AB:5084:9ED2:41AF:A353 (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? Why should we add the FBI codename? And address any changes about Papadopoulos' page on Papadopoulos' talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, don't include Trump pointing to these Flynn case disclosures as part of the article about Flynn case disclosures and events.  Not WEIGHT or direct impact to Flynn, so it would be getting into a separate thing outside the BLP scope of Flynn.  Any outside opinions that this was a systematic persecution by Comey et al 'Deep State' of Trump and everyone associated to him and everyone associated to them ... there must be a better place Trump article for that, but at least it doesn't belong in the same section as just relating Flynn-FBI events.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Michael Flynn has filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
The beginning of the article states that Flynn is a convicted felon based on his guilty plea, but his lawyer filed for a motion to withdraw his plea. This makes him no longer a convicted felon and that should be changed.

In addition, the section on his ongoing legal case does not mention the plea withdrawal motion. The New York Times has published this story. .

75.80.196.129 (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, he filed a motion, but judge Sullivan decides whether to accept it. soibangla (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Makes no difference what the judge says, he filed his documentation of what they all did to him. And it was his ex-lawyers who told him to plead guilty or else. Did you not read his appeal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F0D0:7BA0:6814:3117:AB24:770C (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Flynn remains a convicted felon. Irrelevant what motions have been filed or what defendant states until the judge makes a ruling to change that status. Joey.J (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Was a Judgement of Conviction entered into the official record? It would be a Federal Form that looks like this. https://www.uscourts.gov/forms/criminal-judgment-forms/judgment-criminal-case. If so, i'd happily agree with you. The 13th 4postle (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The judgment form is filled out by the judge during the guilty plea court hearing. The fact that it’s not available until sentencing is probably a matter of process and procedure. Signed agreement here: https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/1162491/download Joey.J (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you look at the Judgement of Conviction form, you'll notice the sentencing section has to be filled out. The rules of criminal procedure are (to me) clear. A conviction has to include the sentence. No sentence. No conviction. (Not an attorney, but that's my understanding.) The 13th 4postle (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

current status as convicted felon
1. Flynn pled guilty in court to a felony. Judge accepted this plea. 2. Flynn has filed a motion to withdraw his plea. Judge has not yet ruled on this motion. Current legal status as felon stands true. 3. DOJ has made public its intention to file a motion for dismissal. Until judge rules on this, conviction status has not changed. Joey.J (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Was a Judgement of Conviction entered into the official record? It would be a Federal Form that looks like this. If so, I’d be happy to stop arguing about this. https://www.uscourts.gov/forms/criminal-judgment-forms/judgment-criminal-case The 13th 4postle (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * User:The 13th 4postle That form is for the later Sentencing phase or Judgement of punishment -- done after the conviction. See Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure rule 32, part of “POST-CONVICTION PROCEDURES”.    The results were already done and then there is a ORDER FOR A PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION AND REPORT and then the Judge gives the sentence on the form you indicated.  If you googled for the 'ORDER FOR A PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION AND REPORT Michael flynn' or 'Criminal Action No . 17 - 232' you'd get more of the paperwork on the Flynn case.
 * Flynn case U.S. v. Michael T. Flynn (1:17-cr-232, District of Columbia)
 * Documents Related to the Mueller Investigation - Lawfare
 * United States v. FLYNN, 1:17-cr-00232 – CourtListener.com
 * Transcript of Sentencing Hearing - Just Security
 * MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA OF GUILTY (14 Jan 2020)
 * SUPPLEMENT TO MR. FLYNN’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR EGREGIOUS GOVERNMENT MISCONDUCT 24 April 2020.
 * GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE CRIMINAL INFORMATION AGAINST THE DEFENDANT MICHAEL T. FLYNN 8 May 2020
 * Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "No; pleading guilty is part of the process which results in your conviction. The judge must still issue the verdict finding you guilty and convicting you of the crime, then imposing the sentence that they deem appropriate. It is theoretically possible that someone could plead guilty, but the judge could issue a finding that the defendant is acquitted of the crime, due to a lack of evidence or other procedural misstep. This is highly unlikely in the real world, but there could be a hypothetical created that would end in this result." - Cliff Gilley, J.D. Criminal Law & Intellectual Property Law, Seattle University School of Law (2000) The 13th 4postle (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2020
The content in the Military Career section should be removed. The notion of Gen Flynn being a Russian asset has been debunked by both the FBI and Robert Mueller. Content like this is purely political garbage and should never be allowed by Wikipedia.

"Stefan Halper, who worked for three Republican presidents and was a longtime informant for the American intelligence community, had a February 2014 encounter with Flynn at a London intelligence conference. Halper became so alarmed by Flynn's close association with a Russian woman that a Halper associate expressed concerns to American authorities that Flynn may have been compromised by Russian intelligence. Flynn was forced out of the DIA six months later, although public accounts at the time cited other reasons for his removal, including his management style and views on Islam. Halper was later a central figure in Spygate, a conspiracy theory initiated by President Trump that asserted the FBI had planted a spy in his 2016 campaign.[40]" Tlopez2266 (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There was a bit of SYNTH there. I split the paragraph and added a separate source. O3000 (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * do you think you've addressed this issue sufficiently? May I close the edit request? Donna Spencer talk-to-me ⛅ 14:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was giving the OP a chance to complain about my edit. But, yes it can be closed as it was improperly stated anyhow. O3000 (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ - This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". - MrX 🖋 14:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The DOJ does not currently believe that Flynn lied to FBI agents?
"The DOJ does not currently believe that Flynn lied to FBI agents". was added to the lead. It is not supported by the cited reference (or any reference that I'm aware of). It would require that the DOJ as whole be capable of beliefs and that sources have verified those beliefs. It's also stated in WP:WIKIVOICE, which means that it is a widespread view. I contend that the head of the DOJ knows that Flynn lied (after all, Flynn admitted it), and that his view does not represent the entire DOJ. Also, the parenthetical "(at the time)" is a blend of original research and WP:WEASEL. This edit should be reverted. - MrX 🖋 11:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The cited reference (https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/politics/fbi-not-expected-to-pursue-charges-against-flynn/index.html) says "The FBI interviewers believed Flynn was cooperative and provided truthful answers. Although Flynn didn't remember all of what he talked about, they don't believe he was intentionally misleading them, the officials say." The 13th 4postle (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I changed it to quote from the source directly. The 13th 4postle (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That reference does not say what the FBI currently believes. It says what the agents believed at the time he interviewed them. The FBI certainly did believe, later, that he was lying. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. And that is why I changed it to quote from CNN directly. But now that quote is missing too. It's upsetting that some editors want to continue deleting new or updated information because it conflicts with the older information. The 13th 4postle (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - you used a February 2017 source to state that the DOJ does not currently believe that Flynn lied? Come on.  starship  .paint  (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're right. I thought it was newer. My bad. The 13th 4postle (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Release of new documents, possible perjury trap
On April 24, 2020, there was a release of previously-unseen documents relating to the investigation of Michael Flynn, including one that shows that, before the meeting with Flynn, one FBI agent had written, "What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?". Should this article mention this release of documents? And if so, should it be done in the context of allegations that Flynn was the target of a perjury trap? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You can see one attempt at creating a section that does both, here. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This RfC is still ongoing, despite the U.S. Department of Justice dropping its case against Flynn, because there is not yet a clear consensus on this question. Please continue to share your opinions below. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No Putting that quote in there without context would make it appear as though the FBI did something inappropriate in their interrogation of Flynn, and there is no evidence to suggest that is the case. Legal experts say it does not show entrapment. The release of documents is WP:ROUTINE, WP:ROTM, and this article already appears to suffer from proseline-like additions of each step of the court process. These documents are nothing more than fodder for the WP:FRINGE. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the FBI does not do things inappropriately? Judge Sullivan OVERTURNED THE CONVICTION OF TED STEVENS for precisely that reason, seems they have not changed their tactics.  I will bet there was a big "Ah $%^&" sigh when he was chosen to oversee the sentencing of Flynn and an even BIGGER ONE when he demanded they turn over any exculpatory evidence from the FBI AFTER THE CONVICTION on plea. Especially now that we know that Strzok transcript of his text was just released  that he altered the 302 extensively trying to write it in the voice of the original agent to influence an investigation which is a Felony punishable for 20 years.173.172.158.168 (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems that the comment "including newly discovered and disclosed information appended to the defendant's supplemental pleadings" from the filing is talking about these notes. So based on that I'm striking my vote. I'm not supporting its inclusion. A whole 'nother process is needed to figure out what we should say. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes to both. Even if Flynn's view that he was caught in a perjury trap - and that these documents help to prove it - was a completely insane, fringe theory, it would still be worth covering here because it represents his views, and his legal defense: ultimately, this is an article about Michael Flynn. However, it's far from a fringe theory, by Wikipedia standards, since it's shared by a variety of American newspaper editorial boards, legal analysts, and politicians, all of whom have written or talked about it publicly. The evidence for including all of this in the article is pretty overwhelming. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes to mentioning the document release, as a major development, widely covered by reliable sources. I don't think we should add "context", unless RS'es do so. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Struck comment by, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See and Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger   talk   17:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes to mentioning the document release and Flynn's subsequent filings, as well as legal expert opinions on their (lack of) significance. Such an addition accurately reflects new developments in the Flynn case and provides needed NPOV to the earlier proceedings. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No to both. I suspect the reason why the full quote (ie. context) hasn't been recommended by those wishing to add this content in: is because it would then appear be a pretty innocuous practice, and yes, run of the mill reporting. If anything, I'd be curious to see what happens in the next few weeks with respect to this latest "development", and then would reconsider if necessary. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 11:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No - Per my previous comments. The proposed material is full of partisan talking points, and disproportionate weight given to a ploy by Flynn's lawyers and Flynn's non-law-respecting supporters. I'm open to considering including something, but I would want to see the wording worked out first and it would have to be much more concise and factual. - MrX 🖋 11:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What about "On April 24, U.S Attorney Timothy J. Shea sent a letter to Flynn's counsel stating that in January 2020, Attorney General Barr had directed U.S Attorney Shea to review reports along with communications and notes by the FBI personal associated with the Michael Flynn Investigation "Crossfire Razor." The letter goes on to state that new evidence in the investigation was found and turned over to the court and opposition counsel under seal." There is no need to focus on the partisan talking points, but a simple and neutral update is appropriate. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Something along those lines would probably be fine, after changing the word personal to person. - MrX 🖋 14:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No We don't elevate empty talking points that are disregarded by the mainstream. "Perjury trap" is rare as the Dodo Bird and does not apply to the facts surrounding this event.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes The idea that this was "disregarded by the mainstream" is just not true as the NYT has covered it precisely in the context of an argument over whether or not it was a perjury trap. Per WP:WIKIVOICE, we should do the same. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes to both Backed by reliable sources. ~ HAL  333  16:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes to both and to Crossfire Razor. Also you really miss the point, FBI thought he did not lie and wanted to close it (there was even a hidden part in court documents that he is not guilty), that is why the guilty plea did not work. It all was pending for so long because Peter Strzok reopened it and as emails show it was not fancy. Also wanted to tell that https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/10/judge-delays-michael-flynns-sentence-again.html and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJVc5GSjpSU can also be used as sources (even though the second is opinion). 91.76.22.132 (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes to both since they are supported by substantial sources. Idealigic (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes to both it gave context to Flynn's defense arguments and is supported by reliable sources Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes to both since there is now large WEIGHT of coverage, and this is part of DOJ dropping charges has large BLP impact on Flynn’s life. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes to both close per WP:SNOW. Buffs (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes to quote, No to "perjury trap" - Include the quote as shown. The note as quoted is heavily reported and quoted, plus that is direct info without spin.  But no to using the phrase "perjury trap", as the phrase seems less commonly used, a bit too inflammatory/POV opinionating versus the WP:BLP quidance to show restraint, and it's just not necessary for the BLP context.  I don't doubt that it is a reasonable label to apply, but the impact for Flynn BLP purposes is in the DOJ dropping charges and saying the investigation was not justified, which all POVs agree happened.   That the investigation used hardball tactics unusual for this context of nor not following normal procedure, seeking a lie, and pursued his business partner and son is significant details that can be neutrally stated.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Inflammatory or no (and accurate or no), the phrase "perjury trap" has been used by quite a few people to describe the Flynn case, including, a few days ago, Attorney General Barr. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Moot?
I'd say this is pretty moot now that the case against him has been dropped. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this RfC is moot now, which actually helps prove my point that encyclopedias, which are written for a historical perspective, require more patients with WP:BREAKING news. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ignoring that bit of illogic, I'm not sure this RfC is moot (though I hope it is). A big part of the reason why this RfC was necessary is the special protected status of this article, which dictates that "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged". Which means that one or a small group of editors can prevent even obvious changes from getting made, on the grounds of "no consensus". You would think that, with this latest news, it would be obvious that Flynn's argument about a perjury trap belong in this article - but then again, it seemed obvious before too, and a handful of editors thought otherwise. So it all depends on whether these specific editors have all changed their minds or not. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No "illogic", if that's even a word. This is why WP:BREAKING was written. We need to take a historical perspective on all events, and legal minutiae that amounts to nothing is WP:UNDUE. If indeed the documents are the impetus for dropping charges, that makes it imperative to include. My opinion on this has changed 180 degrees because the facts on the ground have changed since this RfC was opened. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're unsure if something's a word or not, we have recently created a handy tool called a 'dictionary', where you can look it up - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illogic. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , that snark is not needed. I don't care enough if it's a word to bother looking it up. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)\
 * It was an appropriately snarky response to your "if that's even a word" comment, which was itself a totally gratuitous and condescending snark. I'm glad my point came across clearly. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that the case for including these facts is even stronger now doesn't prove that the case for doing it before was weak. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. That's true. It was my opinion, and the opinion of some of the others who commented, that the case for doing it before was weak. I stand by that. Actual impact (like the DOJ dropping the case, or if the judge had thrown it out) makes for a different situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We will have to see what develops, but I think there will be lots of commentary about how AG Barr may have concluded that the entrapment thing wouldn't fly and didn't want to risk further upsetting his boss. With the opposite, as noted, from the TV judges. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s certainly easier to attack Barr and ignore IG reports and document releases showing potential misconduct in these investigations. Per his statement the decision came from US attorney Jensen. But let’s see how “RS” covers it. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course it came from him. Barr's no dummy. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Amending my statement timestamped 19:03, 7 May 2020 above, the RfC isn't "moot", but the question has been rendered out of date somewhat based on the changed situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In what way is it out of date? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Uh, the charges were dropped. That changes the entire nature of this. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s just a run of the mill undue update though, isn’t it? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , remember to WP:AGF. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Speaking of good faith, how about changing your vote? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How does one relate to the other? I'm waiting to see more press coverage of the dismissal to see exactly how the FBI notes factor in. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So... your opinion on this has not changed 180 degrees, then? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * When editing an encyclopedia, one should exercise caution. I haven't had a chance to read the dismissal memo. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll say this in your favor: as your opinion keeps changing, your confidence in your own wisdom never falters. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My opinion only changes with the facts and the coverage of reliable sources. I see the quote " including newly discovered and disclosed information appended to the defendant's supplemental pleadings". I can only assume that means the notes? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, given that this RfC still appears to be necessary, anyone should feel free to change their vote if they've changed their opinion on it. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Not moot - the coverage WEIGHT and BLP impact is increased because this was a direct impetus to dropping charges. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

As of May 11 2020, DOJ has announced its intention to file a motion to dismiss. Until this is ruled on by the judge, Flynn remains. convicted felon based on his guilty plea accepted in court. Judge will rule on DOJ motion in court. Until that time, Flynn remains convicted of a felony. Joey.J (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Case has not been “dropped” until judge rules on the motion to dismiss. It may be denied. Joey.J (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments by, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See and Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger   talk   17:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request: Asking that this be added to article under the Justice Department's Intent To Drop Charges Section as a section of it's own
New Senate Investigations Proposed For Possible Political Unmasking Of Michael Flynn

On May 13th 2020 Senator Ron Johnson, (R WI), Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman stated that he will be calling Senior Obama Administration officials to testify in the Senate Homeland Security Committee for their repeated unmasking of Michael Flynn, an illegal act against an American citizen for political purposes. Senator Johnson is going to be seeking testimony from Clapper, Brennan, McDonough and “possibly the vice president. Senator Rand Paul (R KY) stated ““This is Vice President Biden using the spying powers of the United States to go after a political opponent. He’s caught red-handed here,” Paul added. “That to me is alarming.” The Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsay Graham (R-SC) stated that his committee will also be holding hearings in June 2020 on the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice interference of an incoming administration in their decision to investigate Flynn. 67.10.206.161 (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

At least, you're going to need a better source to state as a fact that the repeated unmasking of Michael Flynn was an illegal act against an American citizen for political purposes. Your own section header says "possible political". Your text, does not.  starship .paint  (talk) 07:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The phrasing is OK, attributing that statement to the framing of Senator Johnson (R-WI). It would be possible to state it as fact with a different RS, but for now it seems the politicians rhetoric has more WEIGHT.  I’m thinking it is all OFFTOPIC though - even if Biden goes to jail it has nothing to do with BLP Flynn.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Just politics as usual. O3000 (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That argument will not work with Trump ;) 2A00:1370:812C:DB93:3136:B0EA:FC9C:A5B3 (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Michael Flynn is not officially convicted until sentenced.
Lots of misinformation on this Talk Page. Lots of editors continue to repeat that Michael Flynn is convicted. This is not true. Until he has been sentenced. He is not a convicted felon. ,
 * https://www.quora.com/Plea-Bargaining-Is-pleading-guilty-considered-being-convicted/answer/Cliff-Gilley
 * https://www.quora.com/Why-is-a-plea-of-guilty-to-a-crime-not-the-same-as-being-convicted-of-a-crime/answer/John-Thompson-321

The 13th 4postle (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but nothing on Quora even remotely resembles a reliable source. Do you have any actual reliable sources for your assertion? -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  15:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC) (a reasonably active answerer on Quora himself)
 * Misinformation indeed. An hour ago, you posted a link claiming it said the opposite of what it said. Now you are using Quora as a source. O3000 (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * At this point, there is no consensus to state that Michael Flynn has been "convicted". Please provide a reliable source that says he has. I've given two links here to quora from Legal experts that say until he has been sentenced, he has not been convicted. They are not good enough for the article but it should suffice for people to stop spreading inaccurate information. The 13th 4postle (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is the quote again. In case you didn't read it. From the source I cited an hour ago as you said. "The guilty plea is an admission by a defendant that he or she committed a particular offense. Essentially, by admitting guilt, a defendant skips the trial at which a judge or jury would make a determination as to whether or not the defendant was guilty. The conviction is based on a finding of guilt, but it is not complete until after the defendant is sentenced." If you want to use answers from lawyers that didn't consider the very small possibility that someone could plead guilty and not be sentenced, that's on you. But I have now shown that three legal experts do not consider it to be a conviction until he has been sentenced. And that makes perfectly logical sense. The 13th 4postle (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I read it. There were 51 answers, all but a couple said the opposite. You picked this one out of 51 opinions and continue to pretend that this is the answer given in that link. This is a rather extreme example of cherry picking. O3000 (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Flynn was convicted, but before sentencing he appealed, and with recent release of FBI notes the DOJ moved the case be dropped. When and if the judge accepts, the conviction would be nullified.  Like the conviction of his partner was overturned.  But until then, he is convicted.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That source does not say that Michael Flynn was convicted. Just because you and others keep repeating it doesn't make it so. I've now shown three opinions from legal experts that say until a person pleads guilty AND is sentence. They are not convicted. And that makes perfect logical sense. How can a person be convicted until their trial is over? The 13th 4postle (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's just stick to reliable sources and stop introducing garbage like quora and original research. - MrX 🖋 20:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How about the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure?, ,  Emphasis mine.  “(k) Judgment. (1) In General. In the judgment of conviction, the court must set forth the plea, the jury verdict or the court’s findings, the adjudication, and the sentence. If the defendant is found not guilty or is otherwise entitled to be discharged, the court must so order. The judge must sign the judgment, and the clerk must enter it.” Pg. 43 Section (K)(1) The 13th 4postle (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No. That's called WP:SYNTH. I didn't think I had to say "Let's just stick to reliable source about the actual subject of the article, but here we are. - MrX 🖋 21:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure rule 32. Note it is part of “POST-CONVICTION PROCEDURES”.  And MrX is right, WP policy is to use others writing about Flynn as refs, we cannot use this in the article.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't synthesize information from multiple sources. It is one source. The source is directly from the U.S Govt. It states that a part of the judgement of conviction is the sentence. Anyone cannot be officially convicted until they are sentenced. I've quoted it directly. The 13th 4postle (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Where in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure does it mention Flynn or his case? Of course it doesn't, which means that you are taking one of the sources about Flynn and combining it with the FRCP to conclude that Flynn hasn't been convicted. Do you understand now? - MrX 🖋 22:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Was a Judgement of Conviction entered into the official record? It would be a Federal Form that looks like this. If so, I’d be happy to stop arguing about this. https://www.uscourts.gov/forms/criminal-judgment-forms/judgment-criminal-case
 * I'm not interested in debating federal court process with you. This page is for discussing edits to this biography, properly cited to sources about the subject of this biography. I suggest that you quit wasting other editor's time with this original research. - MrX 🖋 23:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not interested because you know you are wrong. If Michael Flynn was a convicted felon, then there would be a Judgement of Conviction which could be cited and linked directly in the article. Wikipedia rules are not the ultimate decider of what is and isn't truth. It's fine for Wikipedia to have rules. And it's fine that you and other editors enforce them.... for the article. But the Talk page is exactly the place for this type of discussion and where such sources and links can be discussed to better write the article. As long as no one states in the article that Michael Flynn is a convicted felon, which he is not, as I have cited multiple times here. I'm cool. The 13th 4postle (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * User:The 13th 4postle Maybe clarify the terms here.   Conviction happens before Criminal sentencing in the United States is a terminology thing, that’s all.  Flynn was convicted.  He was not yet sentenced.  While that conviction might be overturned in appeal or nullified in the situation of a dropped case, it remains historical fact that Flynn *was* convicted - later events are just separate from that.  Not that anything Judicial has happened as yet, other than DOJ filing.  Even a Presidential pardon, sometimes used in cases of protecting people who were convicted even though they were legally innocent the person still was convicted but no longer is a felon.  For this article he initially plead guilty, was convicted, appealed and the case has not yet been dropped until and unless the judge approves doing so.  (I cannot imagine he would not, but skipping speculation...)   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC) (Edit conflict Tweak Markbassett (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC))
 * To put it another way, he was awaiting sentencing. How can you be awaiting sentencing if you haven't been convicted of something? O3000 (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, he wasn't convicted. He plead guilty. That is all. At the sentencing hearing, he would have been convicted as I cited in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure above. The sentence is part of the conviction. They go hand in hand in hand. I know this is confusing for a lot of people. Usually a sentence comes immediately after a Guilty plea but it did not happen in Michael Flynn's case. Had he been convicted by a jury, that would have been different. The judge has the ability to throw out his plea. Which is why Michael Flynn's attorney filed a motion to withdraw a plea, not a motion to withdraw or vacate a conviction. The 13th 4postle (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The difference is between plead guilty and found guilty as I understand it. Only the second is conviction. Again to quote Barr "Many people pleaded guilty to what turned out not to be crimes" and just there are many people who were forced to plea guilty and there is also Expungement. Did I overcomplicate things? Oopsie ;) 2A00:1370:812C:DB93:3136:B0EA:FC9C:A5B3 (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Legal Opinions For and Against Judge Sullivan's Recent Decision to Not Grant Govt's Request to Drop the Case
Against
 * Washington Post: Why the judge in the Michael Flynn case should have immediately dismissed the case
 * Forbes: Judge Sullivan Disregards Two Controlling Precedents By Appointing Amicus In Flynn Case

For
 * Washington Post: The Flynn case isn’t over until the judge says it’s over

- The 13th 4postle (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the effort, but I think there will be enough content without the need for opinion pieces.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Interesting, but the Judge Sullivan internal logic or oddity of his actions seems another thread OFFTOPIC for the Flynn BLP.  Like the thread of Barr, what was done matters to Flynn - but the logic why or criticism *of Sullivan* just makes no difference to Flynn.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

What are comments by Nadler doing in a section called "Dropping of charges"?
Is it common practice in Wikipedia to include the opinions of one's political opponents in biographical information about a person? For some reason the article on Barack Obama does not include super relevant and well-researched claims by Donald Trump after almost every paragraph. Could you not find at least a comment by a supposedly non-biased journalist or a lawyer, instead of the attack dog of the opposing political party? It seems a bit blatant! 46.109.138.188 (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is somewhat incendiary and shouldn't be included along with the quote from Trump. We have much better sources as cited above for Legal Opinions that Support or Oppose the DOJ's Motion to Dismiss the case. The 13th 4postle (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If either of you can find "super relevant and well-researched claims by Donald Trump", I'd be thrilled to include them. Good luck with that. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That was sarcasm. (OP) 46.109.138.188 (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Although, what is the qualification that Nadler has here that Trump did not have? They are both well-known politicians, I believe that one of them has a higher and generally more respected post than the other. Where the Obama article states "born in Hawaii", it does not have a comment from Trump saying, "na-ah". Why so? What's the difference?46.109.138.188 (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we include Nadler's opinion because.. oh right, he is the chair of the United States House Committee on the Judiciary, you know, the committee charged with overseeing the administration of justice within the federal courts. Please do your research before asking pointed questions. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 04:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't Trump technically in charge of everything now? So his opinions should be added to all articles, Rosie O'Donnell's included? If you're just going to ignore the fact that Nadler is an extremely partisan operator, why not ignore that for Trump as well, and assume that everything he says is based on objective analysis of facts? I'm not American, but I'm pretty sure you have a Presidents Day, but NOT a Chairs of the Committee on the Judiciary Day.46.109.138.188 (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What an absolutely simplistic view, “Trump’s in charge of everything, therefore he’s relevant”. I think this conversation is moot because you’re unable to articulate why Trump is more relevant to this than the actual Chair of committee responsible for federal court matters. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 02:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was pointing out the absurdity of your argument, it was just a rhetoric device. I don't believe that Trump's comments should appear anywhere. Neither should Nadler's. They are both political hacks. Your appealing to Nadler's authority by referring to some post that his party members elected him to (for the explicit purpose of scoring political points against the opposing party) is stupid and naive. It's strange that you don't apply this same naive standard to Trump, who was actually elected to his (formerly well-respected) position by the American people rather than by elite Republican Party members. 46.109.138.188 (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve redacted your personal attack for you. Again, you fail to get the point and instead continue to rant and cast aspersions against Nadler, even Trump. We don’t place any weight whatsoever on your opinion, but on RS coverage/and clearly consequential individuals such as Nadler. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 05:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's hard to refrain from personal attacks when you constantly interpret sarcasm on face value. Please, continue enriching every article with easily predictable quotes from party politicians. What we don't have enough in this world is political theater. 46.109.139.100 (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was struggling to respond to your forum-style ranting, yet I didn't resort to personal attacks or WP:SARCASM. Now, with that out of the way: I too, don't have a horse in this race (an Aussie citizen and thank heavens for that), and as such: I would be curious to know what the Chair of the Judiciary Committee thinks about this considering it is a prominent federal court case -- something the Chair deals with. You're arguing that he is a partisan individual, yet, at this point so many are -- at least his opinion is relevant here (that's not me agreeing to the partisanship accusations). —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 13:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be an American to have a horse in the race when an entirely new standard of justice is being applied: a man accused in a political case can only have his name cleared if he's acquitted while the opposing party is 100% in power and there can be no question of "undue influence". Otherwise, the wikipedia article will always state, basically: "Mr. X was acquitted from all charges. But Chair of such-and-such committee says that he's still guilty. So there." Is this really how separation of powers is supposed to work? Whether a man is guilty or not is determined by the courts solely! 46.109.139.100 (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Flynn hasn't been acquitted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was simplifying. It's certainly a development in the DIRECTION of acquittal. 46.109.139.100 (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not so obvious if the judge is looking to hold him in contempt. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a development that made an eventual acquittal more likely rather than less likely. Is that a neutral enough statement? And I know that it's true, because otherwise Nadler would definitely have not said anything about it! 46.109.139.100 (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * An unedited quote from the article on Hillary Clinton: "The House Select Committee on Benghazi was created in May 2014 and conducted a two-year investigation related to the 2012 attack. Its actions were often seen through the prism of domestic politics." Oh well won't you look at that! When the committee is run by Republicans, wikipedia decides that it's appropriate to point out that it has a political agenda! Not a double standard at all! 46.109.139.100 (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Kevin McCarthy pointed out that the Benghazi committee had a political agenda. It was then reported on in the reliable sources. Therefore, we covered it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is Fox news a reliable source? Youtube and Google News certainly believe so! You honestly think it would be difficult to find a Fox article stating that Nadler's comments are politically motivated? 46.109.139.100 (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliably biased for sure, but acceptable for non-commentary. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW this is how separation of powers is supposed to work: "House Judiciary chairman demands Barr testify by June, warns of potential subpoena: Rep. Jerry Nadler's comments come amid the Justice Department's handling of several criminal cases involving former advisers to President Donald Trump." – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nadler calling out obvious DOJ corruption is appropriate and WP:DUE. - MrX 🖋 02:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Obvious to whom? YOU? Can you let us know your professional credentials for making that observation other than you are partisan and biased? What is obvious is that giving automatic weapons to known Cartels was the most stupid thing any Attorney General with the approval of the sitting President at the time. What is obvious  is that the Attorney General that oversaw his DOJ attorneys prosecuting Senator Ted Stevens withholding exculpatory evidence in the case, should have upheld the rule of law and told those attorneys to OBEY THE LAW and turn over that evidence before they did the final arguments and got a conviction, that was overturned by the same Judge who is now the final say in a corrupt FBI sting on General Flynn. What is obvious is there is a LOT OF POV throughout the talk page that makes it into a biography of a living person.67.10.206.161 (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * you're not really going to lecture a longstanding Wikipedia editor about partisanship/bias when your only edits are to this one article's talk page. Also, please leave your ranting about politics outside of the talk page -- not seeing how it is helpful at all to this article. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 04:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not obvious to me that there is any type of corruption. I have yet to see a reliable and verifiable source state and show evidence for corruption. The Jerry Nadler & Trump quote need to go. They both add nothing to Michael Flynn's biography. The 13th 4postle (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, for a longstanding Wikipedia editor you should know that we are just using IP editing because we do not want to get blocked. Disgusting. 91.76.22.132 (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is quite the admission. I’d venture that you might have already been blocked, based on what you just said. No, most IP editors don’t edit without an account to avoid scrutiny and being blocked, as most of them do nothing to get blocked. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Because obviously the most famous and widely-used information source in the world, which has a cachet of anonymous "objectivity", should only be edited by a clique of editors who have the power to block people they for some reason don't like. Because this is clearly a private project of yours that is not a concern to the public at large!46.109.138.188 (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * More whinging. We are objective, according to our policies. If you want to wage some war upon reliable sources, there’s several blogs, and the door.
 * For the record, I’ve never taken another editor to the “drama boards”. I try to encourage even those with the most disparate views from myself to become valuable contributors. I actually believe in this project. That you don’t is immaterial, and just proof you’re wasting our time. Please stop sock-puppeting. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The "project" that you "believe in" is taking the work of scientists and enthusiasts of actually collecting human knowledge (which is the reason why wikipedia is popular) and using it as a vehicle to propagandize your political views. Wikipedia became famous as a place where people could look up stuff on chemistry and physics and geology, not a place where people could get a left-leaning take on current events. That came AFTER, and that's where "true believers" like yourself got on the bus. 46.109.138.188 (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the bigger question here is, how much of the article should be about Flynn himself (and his career and legal travails), and much should be about reaction to his legal issues - since they have opened up big questions about the FBI, the DOJ, the Obama and Trump administrations, etc. In general, I support adding in additional relevant opinions, such as Nadler's, on all of these issues; and ultimately, it may even make sense to create a second article, like "Michael Flynn legal controversy", to hold all of this commentary. For the moment, though, I'm against adding in Nadler's opinion, because it would lead to an imbalanced article. Up until now, a group of three editors have prevented the article from including the pro-Flynn argument, which essentially states that Flynn was the target of a perjury trap. There's an RfC at the moment that will surely eventually overrule them, but until that's resolved, I think it's best for this article to stick to the facts and leave out the commentary. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

These days just about every public figure has a comment on Twitter about a major news story. I don't find a Nadler tweet notable, but if Nadler wanted to have the committee he chairs do an investigation or have a hearing then it obviously would be notable. The chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee has been vocal about recent updates on twitter and talk news shows but his comments are absent here. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nadler isn't just some "public figure", he's the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction on these issues. And he's looking for Barr to testify on this, which will provide us better material to use. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

POV lede
"The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced in early May 2020 that it was dropping all charges against Flynn, sparking criticism of Attorney General William Barr's close relationship with the White House and what some described as a disregard for the rule of law."

I haven't been following the developments of this article, however, this lede is clearly slanted in favor of a certain side and its embarrassing conduct. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken Agree that is POV, and also not per WP:LEAD a summary of the article content. I have no doubt that criticism happened, but it's not really covered in article content with WP:V of a cites such as NPR Michael Flynn Pleaded Guilty. Why Is The Justice Department Dropping The Charges?.  And there seems no reason that criticism of Barr or mention of Barr's relationship to Trump should ever appear in the Flynn biography in much detail.  So I will revert the MrX edit of 12 May 2020 back to the version of the prior several days that simply said dropped case, and leave further details to the section involved.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. I think the lead could be improved - there is just the 2017 plea and suddenly this 2020 dropping of charges, so it doesn't quite make sense.  It could use something in the middle about 'after further documents came out and request for plea change was filed, the DOJ dropped charges'.  But I'll stop here for the day.  Cheers  Markbassett (talk) 06:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Good edit Markbassett. Agree that it added unneeded POV into the lead and the current version is better. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that my bold improvement to the lead didn't take. I'm not sure how someone who hasn't "been following the developments of this article" can make a pronouncement that the lead is "slanted" and "POV"[sic] (I think they mean "not NPOV" [the opposite of "neutral point of view" is not "point of view"]).

The fact is, the current wording is awkward and omits the significant and widely-reported backlash resulting from Barr's actions. That backlash includes thousands of responses from former prosecutors, legislators, law scholars, the presiding judge and so on.
 * For discussion purposes, here is the current version:

This wording is very roundabout. It uses a lot of words to say "pleaded guilty" and it employs a euphemism for "lying to the FBI". On top of that, it omits that political aspect of Barr using the DOJ for Trump's benefit, rather than justice for all. Here is what I proposed:

I can produce dozens of sources to support this wording, so WP:DUEWEIGHT is easily met. The previous version obscures the key facts, reducing the matter to just another day in court, which does indeed work against NPOV. - MrX 🖋 11:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The "sparking criticism" wording is indeed biased. Obviously it sparked criticism; literally every part of the Flynn saga has sparked criticism, either from the pro-Flynn side or anti-Flynn side or both. Was there overwhelming criticism of this DOJ action? I haven't seen evidence of that. It seems like the expected people supported it, and the expected people opposed it. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * First, let's set the pro Flynn/anti Flynn aside. This isn't a boxing match. I gave examples of the types of sources of the criticism, and an indication of the extent. If not "sparked criticism", what wording would you suggest that conveys the phenomenon of the sudden and vocal criticism that arose when the DOJ's actions went public? - MrX 🖋 15:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no due weight either. There are multiple expert legal opinions supporting the DOJ decision (as cited above). Accusations of corruption and violations of the rule of law have yet to be supported with any evidence and are purely partisan opinions at this point. The 13th 4postle (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - 2110 former DOJ employees have signed a statement that the The Department’s purported justification for doing so does not hold up to scrutiny. Here is the RS coverage. Is that expected opposition? How far have we come.  starship .paint  (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , please explain how there is "no due weight either". Did you count sources, or only article in major newspapers? What did you compare them to to come to that conclusion? - MrX 🖋 15:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is 2,000 ex-employees a lot? I don't know. The US Department of Justice apparently has about 100,000 current employees. I have no idea how many ex-employees there are - if it's roughly that same number, that means that 2% of former employees publicly disapprove of this action. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at the list. There positions are included. These were not clerks, janitors, secretaries, etc. O3000 (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, what percentage of former white-collar employees is it? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Latest number I could find is 9,500 attorneys in 2008. I you look at the signed statement, nearly all appear to be attorneys including high level titles. O3000 (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the number of current employees - what's the number of former ones? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

If we are going to say anything about the criticism of the DOJ's decision (and I think a sentence could be included with a couple of respected references), it should be in the article text, not the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This is supposed to be Flynn’s BLP - the events and choices in his life, and the impacts on him. Criticism *of Barr* or *Barr re Trump* is OFFTOPIC. The POV was referring to it being a partisan framing. It would be like mentioning Biden was one of those “unmasking” Flynn and that it is criticised as sabotaging the incoming administration. In making it “all about Flynn”, we just say charges were dropped. Going into other things - would probably fit better in other articles. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 01:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. The 13th 4postle (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree, and it's another argument for creating a separate article like "Michael Flynn legal controversy". Not yet, though, because one highly contentious Flynn-related article is probably enough for now. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Korny O&#39;Near there’s already Criminal charges brought in the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019), and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections that would be more appropriate spots for any controversy outside the BLP life-of-Flynn. I may have missed any others that would be better, but non-Flynn details doesn’t seem to belong here.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Those are interesting, but I don't think this kind of detailed listing of reactions, and reactions to the reactions, would make sense in either of those overview articles. They're both huge already! This would probably require a new article. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * First of all, one must explicitly say on the page that dropping the charges in the situation like that was extremely unusual. Which brings another question widely covered in sources: why they were dropped according to RS? Therefore, I think the criticism of the DOJ's decision is completely on the topic and must be included. It is about dropping the charges about Flynn. And no, one should not create a separate page, which would be a POV fork.My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t seem ‘unusual’, it looks like the dropping of charges against Russian companies — given the flaws in procedure and evidence looking like they couldn’t actually win in court, why go thru getting embarrassed? And in any case, SPECULATION over logic inside *Barr* decision is just OFFTOPIC.  The dropping affects Flynn, but ‘why’ just doesn’t matter to Flynn, it’s not BLP event or choice in *his* life.    Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "It does not seem...", No, it was actually described in multiple RS as "extraordinary" . But I can partly agree: such things are frequently happen in the DOJ under Barr. This is arguably a chain of related events: dropping charges against Russian companies and especially Oleg Deripaska (who are guilty as sin) and now also against Flynn who admitted his guilt. This is corruption at worst, as many sources say. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it is usual. (I wanna say that Depripaska and Prigoshin are bad guys, no doubt here.) You cannot sue our russian companies in US courts in most cases, as it will lack jurisdiction. You need to sue in Moscow court or Human rights court. The first example in google https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2019/01/25/riaa-flvto-biz/ The russian showed up in court and case was dismissed with prejudice. They of course though it will not happen. 2A00:1370:812C:DB93:4CD0:3800:22D6:A881 (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * At best, the proposed addition is WP:UNDUE for the lead of this BLP. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)